Ched refused right to appeal :(

[LoughboroBlade]

It does make me perplexed why quite a few on forums still are steadfast he is innocent wihtout having anywhere near the full facts.

The reason in my opinion is because he was simply one of our players, so plenty are likely willing to just give him the benefit of the doubt in the case and assume based on the limited information provided in 140-character snippets that he's been done over by a jury wanting to punish a footballer. Were the same situation to have arisen with a player at one of our local rivals there is absolutely no way that this would even be a topic of general conversation. Plenty of fans will have idolised the man, previously worn shirts with Evans on the back of it, and are no doubt less willing to give up hope that he's innocent of all charges.

We've all been there. It took me 6 months to realise getting a shirt with 39 Onuora on it was something I had to take action to address.

 

[Grecian2000]

It does make me perplexed why quite a few on forums still are steadfast he is innocent wihtout having anywhere near the full facts.

Can't speak for anyone else but to me the whole innocent thing revolves around the fact the other bloke was found "not guilty".
If there were three people in the room and one says she can't remember shit, and the other two both say she said yes then they are either BOTH lying and guilty or both not guilty. To me, unless McDonald has said "She was OK with me doing it but said no when Evans wanted a go" then, no-one else was there, so they are in the same boat. That's the bit that casts a doubt in my mind.

As for "moving on". It's only a discussion on a forum and a sight more interesting than the daily whereabouts of James Beattie or the current state of the website!

 

[Bladesway]

With regards to Evans it never ceases to amaze me how many zero informed people say he must be innocent. As if pulling on a red and white shirt means you can break every and any law you wish to with total impunity.

"Ched is innocent", "she was asking for it", "shes just a dirty little slag" spout the immorral minority. When does Gene Hunt majestically appear on the board and tell us its really 1973? He was convicted, hence theres a good chance he did it. The 12 people and Judge who convicted him know better than any one of us on here.

 

[Jehovah]

His conviction was a total and utter joke. Good luck to him.

 

[Bladesway]

As for "moving on". It's only a discussion on a forum and a sight more interesting than the daily whereabouts of James Beattie or the current state of the website!

Someone should mock a new home shirt up. That would cure your boredom.

 

[JohnDenver]

As for "moving on". It's only a discussion on a forum and a sight more interesting than the daily whereabouts of James Beattie or the current state of the website!

As if to prove your point, I've just bumped the global warming thread.

 

[Grecian2000]

As if to prove your point, I've just bumped the global warming thread.

I've noticed and reacted accordingly.

 

[raul]

Started a poo thread??

 

[TarquinDelouche]

With regards to Evans it never ceases to amaze me how many zero informed people say he must be innocent. As if pulling on a red and white shirt means you can break every and any law you wish to with total impunity.

Never once heard that. From anybody.

"Ched is innocent", "she was asking for it", "shes just a dirty little slag" spout the immorral minority.

And there are also a number of people who question the conviction without stooping so low as to suggest that it's alright to rape anybody, and - get this - even question there was a rape at all! All without labelling ANYBODY a slag!!

He was convicted, hence theres a good chance he did it.

This does not mean there is no chance he didn't.

Just saying.

 

[kingston RAWW]

He acted in a despicable way to a human being. The yard stick for me is if it was my daughter. I think he got what he deserved I am afraid.

 

[Crazyblade]

He acted in a despicable way to a human being. The yard stick for me is if it was my daughter. I think he got what he deserved I am afraid.

I kind of agree. I have issues with the conviction - there are definite questions - but at the end of the day if he'd kept his dick in his pants (and remembering he had a gorgeous girl waiting for him at home) then NONE of this would have happened.

And this thread doesn't belong in the "General Blades Chat" - he is no longer a Blade.

 

[StarBlade]

Can't speak for anyone else but to me the whole innocent thing revolves around the fact the other bloke was found "not guilty".
If there were three people in the room and one says she can't remember shit, and the other two both say she said yes then they are either BOTH lying and guilty or both not guilty. To me, unless McDonald has said "She was OK with me doing it but said no when Evans wanted a go" then, no-one else was there, so they are in the same boat. That's the bit that casts a doubt in my mind.

As for "moving on". It's only a discussion on a forum and a sight more interesting than the daily whereabouts of James Beattie or the current state of the website!

Not true.

The lady in question went back to the hotel with McDonald after a night out, something that happens thousands of times each night across the UK. Therefore, could a jury, without reasonable doubt, say that consent wasn't given?

Evans however went there alone, deceived the receptionist at the hotel to gain entry to a room that wasn't his, he had absolutely no business being in there, therefore the two outcomes can be different, as they were.

 

[JJ Sefton]

He acted in a despicable way to a human being. The yard stick for me is if it was my daughter. I think he got what he deserved I am afraid.

That's true. I have my doubts over whether what he did was criminal but there's no doubt that he's a shitty human being.

 

[Pinchy]

That's true. I have my doubts over whether what he did was criminal but there's no doubt that he's a shitty human being.

A civilised society punishes the former; not the latter!

 

[JJ Sefton]

A civilised society punishes the former; not the latter!

I quite agree.

 

[Bladesway]

Never once heard that. From anybody.


And there are also a number of people who question the conviction without stooping so low as to suggest that it's alright to rape anybody, and - get this - even question there was a rape at all! All without labelling ANYBODY a slag!!


This does not mean there is no chance he didn't.

Just saying.

Never heard it? I have. Several times. While you can question it you, I and just about anyone else aren't in command of the facts in the same way as a Jury and the Judge. They say he did it, I believe them as opposed to anyone else. The justice system is there to convict the guilty and free the innocent in spite of their goals per game ratio. It is the system most of the world looks up to as the best there is. So my guess is its pretty ok.

I didn't agree with the John Terry verdict, but that might be because I think he is a dispicable lowlife anyway. I don't argue with the lack of a conviction however.

No, there isn't ever "no chance he didn't", but again, people on forums seem to have the perception via their "Justice for Ched" that they know better. They don't.

While you and anyone else may not be suggesting it is OK to rape (which obviously it isn't) the unhelpful comments of a few make something that is already a difficult crime to convict even more difficult. All because he wore the red and white. Crazy way to make a judgement don't you think? I wonder how we would be going off if he had been a pig?

I readilly admit it looks strange that McDonald didn't get convicted but Ched did. But you have to think that there is a good chance that there is a weight of evidence supporting his conviction that makes it different to that of the bloke freed. Reasonable doubt and innocent until PROVEN guilty seem to nail that one.

Finally, his chance to appeal has been shot to pieces. I am sure he can end up in some higher court because he has more money than the rest of us, but his options are running out. Why is that? Could it be because to all neutral observers it looks like he did it?

Just saying.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Not true.

The lady in question went back to the hotel with McDonald after a night out, something that happens thousands of times each night across the UK. Therefore, could a jury, without reasonable doubt, say that consent wasn't given?

Evans however went there alone, deceived the receptionist at the hotel to gain entry to a room that wasn't his, he had absolutely no business being in there, therefore the two outcomes can be different, as they were.

On the point raised in the first paragraph, the judge directed the jury to consider whether the victim was too drunk to consent, NOT whether the defendants had reasonable belief that she had consented. The judge considered that both defendants did have that belief.

 

[Pinchy]

On the point raised in the first paragraph, the judge directed the jury to consider whether the victim was too drunk to consent, NOT whether the defendants had reasonable belief that she had consented. The judge considered that both defendants did have that belief.

I'm not sure if you're saying what you appear to be saying Highbury! If you are I'm afraid it's another "Jagielka" moment!

The jury will have been directed that reasonable belief in consent IS a defence!

Section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

 

[TarquinDelouche]

While you and anyone else may not be suggesting it is OK to rape (which obviously it isn't) the unhelpful comments of a few make something that is already a difficult crime to convict even more difficult. All because he wore the red and white. Crazy way to make a judgement don't you think? I wonder how we would be going off if he had been a pig?

The worst and majority of those comments came from Rhyl if I recall.

 

[JJ Sefton]

The worst and majority of those comments came from Rhyl if I recall.

I kept hearing from certain people on here that the folk of Rhyl had a low opinion of the victim. Never saw any evidence of it myself though.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

I'm not sure if you're saying what you appear to be saying Highbury! If you are I'm afraid it's another "Jagielka" moment!

The jury will have been directed that reasonable belief in consent IS a defence!

I know that, but it's my understanding that if a victim is too drunk to consent, she's too drunk to consent. Period.(?)

 

[TarquinDelouche]

I kept hearing from certain people on here that the folk of Rhyl had a low opinion of the victim. Never saw any evidence of it myself though.

There were the arrests made in north Wales.

 

[mpjacko]

With regards to Evans it never ceases to amaze me how many zero informed people say he must be innocent. As if pulling on a red and white shirt means you can break every and any law you wish to with total impunity.

"Ched is innocent", "she was asking for it", "shes just a dirty little slag" spout the immorral minority. When does Gene Hunt majestically appear on the board and tell us its really 1973? He was convicted, hence theres a good chance he did it. The 12 people and Judge who convicted him know better than any one of us on here Wrong. It was the jury decision whilst the judge doesn't have any say even if he believes they are wrong.

Just like the many people who post incorrect information and are happy that someone can convict a man by saying "she was too drunk to remember". How convenient?

 

[mpjacko]

There were the arrests made in north Wales.

They prob still do but I doubt she will care with the amount of money she will make from CE

 

[mpjacko]

Evans however went there alone, deceived the receptionist at the hotel to gain entry to a room that wasn't his, he had absolutely no business being in there, therefore the two outcomes can be different, as they were.

Not true.

The room was in his name and so has every right (since he paid of the room) to ask the receptionist for a key and to stay there for the night if he chose too.

 

[Bladesman]

We are not in full possession of the facts and hard for anyone to say with any accuracy. All I know is from a few legal people during the trial that told me he was pretty certain to get sent down (I didn't believe them at the time based on the sketchy information we all read via twitter). So there must of been a rather strong bit of evidence that didn't get relayed in enough detail via the media. I believe that evidence to be the CCTV showing the state she was in at the time which none of us have seen. The 2 reporters on twitter did their best but some of them were not there every day of the trial and there is so much you can get across via twitter.

He will serve 2 years or so regardless of further appeal and he may as well then try to clear his name once released. He will find another club though especially if Marlon King can get one.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

They prob still do but I doubt she will care with the amount of money she will make from CE

Again, fuck all evidence of this. If she is to make money from CE, she will have to pursue a civil case against him and waive the right of anonymity.

If she has made any money from it, then it will be from the CICA, not Ched. She doesn't need to wait for Ched's appeal to be over before she sues him. Since AFAIK it's still a criminal offence to name her, then we can assume no civil case has been brought against him yet.

 

[mpjacko]

On a slightly different area of the case, what would happen if CE's conviction is squashed after a year or 2? He would a free man who was wrongly convicted for rape whilst spending time in Jail. Who would compensate CE for this? Would the state compensate Ched or would he go after the lass for money, and would her name be published if ched's appeal is successful?

 

[Bladesman]

Again, fuck all evidence of this. If she is to make money from CE, she will have to pursue a civil case against him and waive the right of anonymity.

If she has made any money from it, then it will be from the CICA, not Ched. She doesn't need to wait for Ched's appeal to be over before she sues him. Since AFAIK it's still a criminal offence to name her, then we can assume no civil case has been brought against him yet.

Can she sue anytime though? E.g. Once released and is earning money again?

Also can she sue McDonald at all?

 

[mpjacko]

Again, fuck all evidence of this. If she is to make money from CE, she will have to pursue a civil case against him and waive the right of anonymity.

If she has made any money from it, then it will be from the CICA, not Ched. She doesn't need to wait for Ched's appeal to be over before she sues him. Since AFAIK it's still a criminal offence to name her, then we can assume no civil case has been brought against him yet.

Lets wait and see then.